In Hwa Aik Engineering Pte Ltd v Munshi Mohammad Faiz and anor [2021] SGHC(A) 1 (“Hwa Aik v Munshi”), the newly established Appellate Division of the High Court refused to grant leave to appeal against the General Division’s recent decision on dual vicarious liability.
Read MoreIn Munshi Rasal v Enlighten Furniture Decoration Co Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 23, the Court of Appeal ordered that the appellant’s solicitor is to bear all the costs incurred in the appeal personally.
Read MoreIn Tan Ng Kwang Nicky v Metax Eco Solutions Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 16 (“Tan v Metax”), the Singapore Court of Appeal had the occasion to explain the impact of settlement agreement on court proceedings.
Read MoreIn the recent Court of Appeal decision of Ang Jian Sheng Jonathan v Lyu Yan [2021] SGCA 12, the Court of Appeal made some observations (albeit obiter) on the interactions between the application of the rule in Foster v Driscoll [1929] 1 KB 470, and the framework set out in Ochroid Trading Ltd v Chua Siok Lui (trading as VIE Import & Export) [2018] 1 SLR 363.
Read MoreIn the United Kingdom Supreme Court decision of Uber BV and others v Aslam and others [2021] UKSC 5, the United Kingdom Supreme Court ruled that Uber drivers are workers for the purposes of employment legislation.
Read MoreIn Cheung Teck Cheong Richard and others v LVND Investments Pte Ltd [2021] SGHC 28 (“Cheung v LVND”), the Singapore High Court found that there was an arbitration agreement based on the parties’ course of conduct and stayed the Court proceedings commenced by the plaintiffs.
Read MoreThe High Court recently held that multiple defendants could be vicariously liable for the negligence of a single tortfeasor. Applying the general test in Ng Huat Seng v Munib Mohammad Madni [2017] 2 SLR 1074 (“Ng Huat Seng”), a sub-contractor (“1D”) was found to be vicariously liable for the negligence of another sub-contractor’s (“3D”) employee at the worksite of the construction project (“Project”).
Read MoreIn the England and Wales Court of Appeal (“EWCA”) decision of Jalla & Ors v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company & Anor [2021] EWCA Civ 63 (“Jalla v Shell”), the EWCA dealt with the distinction between a cause of action for nuisance versus a cause of action for continuing nuisance.
Read MoreIn CBS v CBP [2021] SGCA 4 (“CBS v CBP”), the Singapore Court of Appeal upheld the Singapore High Court’s decision to set aside an arbitration award for breach of natural justice.
Read MoreThe recent decision of Timing Ltd v Tay Toh Hin [2021] SGHC 5 considered whether the provisional garnishee order granted at the show cause stage for two joint accounts in Timing Ltd v Tay Toh Hin [2020] SGHC 169 should be made final. The High Court was not satisfied that this was proven on the facts because evidence showed that the account holders intended for the bank account to be beneficially owned by both.
Read More
![MUNSHI MOHAMMAD FAIZ V INTERPRO CONSTRUCTION PTE LTD [2021] SGHC 26: DUAL VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR A SINGLE TORTFEASOR](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5b6dba3250a54f3034533fb4/1612850585721-60HGSROXT2HATJL6UPBI/image-asset.jpeg)
![TIMING LTD V TAY TOH HIN [2021] SGHC 5: GARNISHING A JOINT ACCOUNT – CAN YOU PROVE IT?](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5b6dba3250a54f3034533fb4/1611110289831-EWAAMNP48JP3V69RTV18/image-asset.jpeg)